The Tragic Loss
of Bloodlines and Mentoring in Americaby Carol D. Hawke

These tremulous
topics are subjects I have been carefully contemplating for better
than a decade after we first began to hear rumors from British
friends about the unsettling disappearance of renowned bloodlines and
having personally witnessed the decline of individual mentoring here
in America. The disconcerted whispers have evolved into various
public outcries as numbers of longtime breeders, handlers and judges
worldwide have united in mutual concern.

In all recorded
decades past in America and over much of the centuries written of dog
breeding, serious dog breeders have always worked diligently to
produce "bloodlines." Americans are still inclined to
fondly refer in slang to their breeding programs as their "
lines." These were typically direct canine lineages that traced
back to one or more foundation stock of note. These "lines"
remained consecutive as the decades pushed steadily onward, with
breeders adding and removing characteristics in the same fashion as
an artist adds and removes detail from a masterpiece in progress.
Sometimes that forward momentum came at a crawl and other times in
leaps and bounds, yet serious fanciers rarely abandoned their
"lines." In actual practice, bloodlines were only rejected
when a deadly defect or perilous plague allowed no other option. For
a few breeders, such disaster spelled the end of a life's work. The
venture was over insofar as they were concerned. Others found
opportunities to begin again with some related stock shared by a
former pupil or two. The point remains; dedicated breeders remained
intensely loyal to their original programs.

Each major
bloodline presented a differing view of the standard while all of
them offered some presentable version. Every kennel or
"line" did its' own share of winning and staked-out a firm
place in the annals of canine history. Large or small, each one made
a contribution, of that there can never be any question or doubt. One
could count on those "lines" inasmuch as they were
identifiable types, to produce dogs that would in turn, produce more
dogs that bore the distinct resemblance of "the line."
There was a notable, positive measure of consistency both
phenotypically and genetically. A common practice was for the next
generation of dog breeders (the mentored) to take up foundation stock
from two popular "lines" and create, much to their own and
everyone else's great delight, a "new line." Wisely
mentored, talented individuals found ways to bring out the very best
of differing "lines." Such efforts frequently made fast
friends of longtime show opponents. After all, both lines contributed
to a reawakened success in much the same fashion proud grandparents
are spontaneously united. In a few cases where the "lines"
clashed and the new efforts failed, each side could blame the other
for the unhappy results. Regardless, a mutually satisfying
proposition resulted however the tossed genetic coin may have landed.
If one cross failed, another was attempted until success was
eventually obtained. The entire process was accomplished under the
watchful eyes of scrupulous mentors. A successful breeding program of
one's own marked the rite of passage for the past two centuries of
dog breeding in America until the most recent decades. Tendencies and
trends in dog breeding have suddenly taken a series of sharp turns.
Times have changed, yes, but times always do change while dog
breeding as a hobby is manifesting an entirely new face.

What shall we
entitle this fallacious facade? Nobody I have the pleasure of knowing
at length in dogs is able to fully grasp this anomaly and accurately
identify it. Is this a transitional phase in dog breeding or is it
the wave of the future rendering many of us the tail end of an
ancient entity that will cease before our very eyes? The visible
characteristics of this incomprehensibly unorthodox approach to dog
breeding reveals first and foremost the loss of distinct
"lines" as we knew them. Subsequently and secondarily we
note the rapid decline of clearly identifiable variations within
breeds owing to an apparent lack of resolve to preserve known lines
or even develop new ones for that matter. Evidently, many of today's
trendy fanciers may view dog breeding as a sort of genetic
'smorgasbord' wherein it really does not matter what one starts with
or ends up with as long as it produces a winner instantly. What we
are witnessing is the rejection of the proven practice of long term
breeding from a particular line or lines in order to manifest some
version of the breed standard along with the essential fine-tuning
that it has always necessitated. I have personally noted (along with
many who have arisen from the traditional role of dog breeding) that
no apparent mental concept of the breed standard seems to be required
by this new generation of dog breeders. In its' place resides the
quaint desire to refrain from producing a show specimen with any
disqualifying faults or other serious refractions that might prevent
winning. If every critter produced by such breeders and their
typical, entangling alliances is entirely different in type,
temperament and structure from the next, this is apparently
incidental if not amusingly quirky - rather than appropriately
humiliating. This recent phenomena poses a genuine dilemma for the
mentors currently addressing dog breeders and doubtless, to our
reigning judges.

Much of the
murmuring amongst longtime breeders and judges reflects the rarity of
locating two dogs with remotely equivalent virtues in any given
breed, much less in any class at a dog show today. There appears
neither rhyme nor reason to the breeding techniques being
implemented. One might surmise from the evidence presented that
today's dog breeder expects to win at each outing with every show
prospect entered. Infinitely worse, far too many are wont to sell as
show prospects all remotely saleable individuals from each litter
produced without regard to consistency of quality or future
prepotency. Perplexingly overlooked is the simple fact that a great
deal of time has always been expended at home by serious, ethical dog
breeders planning, growing out and placing the majority of litters
who are not and never will be, show or breeding quality dogs. That's
just the way dog breeding pans out. Only the best were brought forth
for public exhibition. Every pup a conscientious individual produces
doesn't rate 'show prospect' nor should they all be considered as
breeding stock by virtue of the obvious fact that they share the same
illustrious pedigree. This lack of common sense (or excessive greed,
if the truth be revealed) is one of the primary factors that
engenders severe anxiety for longtime mentors who are valiantly
risking their own reputations to educate and represent novice
breeders, just as their illustrious predecessors once did.

It has
historically been stressed that no individual can successfully breed
a line of dogs without a very specific breed template in mind.
Similarly, ethical breeders have always been taught to
conscientiously remove from the breeding program all stock that
failed to meet those criteria. This is the foundational motivation
behind judging dogs and the primary protocol for assessing them in a
show ring. Today's version of novice unfortunately tends to reveal
the stereotypical know-it-all who eagerly acquires a dozen differing
bitches from equally as many breeders (often worldwide) and pack them
right off to the top winning stud dogs in their breeds. Such
blatantly shortsighted behavior is still preferable to nauseating
scenario B. Consider the latter case wherein those same bitches are
bred to the most local and convenient stud dog(s) the breeder can
find or pick up inexpensively. The fact that these naïve
newcomers are frequently financially raped by what should be
'reputable' dog breeders (especially overseas) is another issue
entirely. Owing to a considerable lack of deep thinking or just
glaring ignorance, countless modern breeders are more interested in
health clearances than pedigrees and show records than prepotency.
Health clearances are marvelous (we've promoted them for years
ourselves) but they can never substitute for the intimate knowledge
that will reveal exactly which lines tend to produce which defects. A
series of health clearances achieved by a dog from a line that has
consistently produced those defects is like a rubber sword. It's not
going to protect your breeding program in the end run. You may be
inclined to disagree with this; but I would rather breed to a dog
from a line I know rarely produces a certain defect even though my
choice may have failed that test, than the previous candidate.
Equally vitally, an experienced analysis of pedigree quality and
depth is vital to the success of any breeding program. The inability
to wisely apprehend each of these invaluable tools and utilize them
from the standpoint of experience will render a pedigree little more
than a fancy piece of paper and health statistics and show records no
better than an interesting collection of facts. Widely available are
wonderful books and new programs designed to help instruct the
breeders of this era but again, I reiterate and strongly advocate;
personal, individual mentorship has absolutely no substitute. Only a
mentor can personally impart every detail of an intimate knowledge
while role modeling ethical and conscientious conduct. Successful
breedership is taught not bought!

Herein lies my
second key point today. Until a wannabe breeder develops a specific
breed photograph (hopefully, based upon the breed standard)
internally and makes the choice to honor proven, worthwhile mentors
who will devote themselves to their pupils success, he will fail to
create any long term impact on his chosen breed. Today's candidates
seem to compose a burgeoning group of rootless competitors that buy
dogs left and right in each breed and hop right into the ring with
them longing desperately for winnersor, at least wins. Every
year they sport new dogs, new lines and a new look. It causes one to
ponder precisely what happened to last year's models! These people
don't have the groundwork to breed dogs of the merit they desire.
Compare any such individual to another who is championed by
successful mentors and is blessed with the wisdom and patience to
actually heed their advice. Both individuals will output similar
amounts of time and effort but the former, self-appointed orphan will
nearly always struggle vainly and likely abandon the effort. Others
just switch from breed to breed, hoping for better "luck."
Worse yet, many become bitter renegades determined to regain their
initial investment one way or another. Perhaps the impact being
sought currently is a different one than that so admired in previous
decades. If the motivation is simply to "win, win, win!"
and subsequently, "any dog will do you," then our nation's
mentors really ought to step back, take a deep breath, uncurl their
toes and fingers and let come what may. My assertion has long been,
"Big winds blow over," but perhaps in this case; "Big
wins blow over," would be more apropos. The end result of each
individual's efforts will eventually become visible in conformation
and performance circles and in the annals of canine history, as it
always has. However, the likelihood of this fast-food mentality (as
applied to dog breeding) ever producing consistency in type,
temperament or soundness is well beyond the realm of a slim chance
and if it were to gain foothold, we would be forced to concede that
the days of bloodlines and prepotent producers may be nigh over.
These strangely inspired opportunists will still manage to produce
winning dogs hither and yon but never two and three in the same
litter. Moreover, such dogs will seldom pass on the characteristics
that caused them to win in the first place. Flash-in-the-pan winners
may even produce healthier pups in the short term owing to the
blessing of outcross vigor but in the long run, the progress will not
be sustained. It takes generations of working through genetic defects
to breed them out to a very safe distance, if you know "the
line" and what it tends to produce consistently that is. It also
requires generations to breed in virtues that will reproduce
faithfully.

Allow me to relate
an incident at this point. It's a true story so I hope all
prospective dog breeders will sit up and pay attention. When I was a
teenager I worked very hard for a lady who raised German Shorthairs.
One day she informed me we were going to clean a large kennel owned
by a wealthy fancier of the breed. My mentor warned me to be wary of
the dogs and not speak openly regardless of what I saw. The elderly
fellow who owned the place was no longer able to manage the operation
properly but she also insisted that he had been "an
eccentric" all his life. In fact, that is what everyone in our
area called this man, "eccentric." Over a period of decades
the patron had built a beautiful, full-fledged kennel with
indoor/outdoor runs on a lovely parcel of acreage. Inside this brick
facility were special rooms designated to breed, whelp and rear pups
and even space for displaying show and field trophies. A small home
on the property had been provided for live in kennel help. Large
yards to exercise the dogs were overgrown while previously well-kempt
flowerbeds had withered away. In previous years they must have
supplied a lovely grandeur to the exterior. Once inside the kennel,
all lofty expectations fell desperately short. The dogs were as many
types as one could ever dread coming across in any given breed. There
were tall ones; short-legged ones, coarse headed and snipey dogs and
not one that looked remotely like the next. There were friendly, tail-wagging
dogs kenneled next to neurotic, circle-spinning, crazy dogs that
would as soon bite you as look at you. To tell you the truth, it was
rather nauseating. I had to seriously rethink the prospect of
breeding dogs as a hobby for some time after we finished cleaning the
kennel and departed. That chaos was the end result of decades of
breeding based upon the incredibly mistaken premise that "winning
is the only thing," and little else mattered. What cemented the
dismal failure in my young mind was the realization that the rewards
(ribbons and trophies) accumulated over those decades were rendered
utterly trivial and meaningless by the lack of consistent virtue in
those dogs. This 'breeder's' efforts provided nothing of value and in
some ways, served to set the breed back locally. He had accumulated a
few, tarnished trophies and wrinkled ribbons but nothing
consequential was accomplished. If one can be satisfied with so
little then I will admit that this fast-track mindset regarding dog
breeding may be of an extremely limited value.

Here is another
case in point for those who feel personal mentoring should remain a
lost art. An individual whom had migrated from another breed decided
to focus an effort at linebreeding on the most prepotent stud dog of
the past century. Although himself a dog of many grand virtues, he
possessed equal and grievous faults that he managed to set into his
offspring. His main fault was a weak, round headpiece featuring a
narrow, triangular shaped muzzle (instead of the broad muzzle
required) with its' accompanying narrow, wry jaw. To a lesser degree,
he was also straight stifled. Without the meticulous, personal
mentoring that should have been provided in order to point out to
this newcomer those serious deficits, they became quickly overlooked.
As time passed, this confused individual concluded that the miserable
headpiece that came to characterize that breeding program should be
promoted as a correct feature for the entire breed. These dogs were
widely advertised throughout the canine world until many judges began
to accept this outlandish conglomeration of faults as an acceptable
version of standard breed type. This tragedy may not have occurred if
just one particularly prodigious breeder had been properly schooled
individually regarding the correct utilization of the breed standard
and modern bloodlines. A qualified mentor could have steered this
novice around the immobilizing point of blind ignorance. Those judges
who fail to read and apply breed standards and who judge by
advertisement (familiar faces) alone do purebred dogs an equal
disservice. Very often, a simple lack of proper tutoring is all it
takes to instill a negative trend into any given breed.

There are
invaluable concepts becoming lost to our recent generation of dog
breeders. Either that or the wrong shaped pegs are being pounded
against their will into the incorrect holes by the stubbornly
ignorant for lack of other suitable explanation. I cannot personally
conclude that the dog world is so lacking in serious, experienced
mentors as it is deplorably void of dedicated, loyal students who are
determined to 'mind their mentors' and invest more than their silly,
petty funds. Rather, let them invest something into the Sport of
lasting value such as their time, talent and devotion. I would
cheerfully trade ten thousand of these ridiculous,
"Top-Ten-Syndrome" devotees with fistfuls of dollars for
one modest, respectful and loyal breed student. Moreover I would
prefer one without a spare penny. Such a prodigy will be far less
wasteful with my precious bloodlines than some exasperating,
bill-folding biped that deliriously suspects she can magically create
a breeding program from thin air by waving a few bucks in the right
direction. Deluded individuals are further inclined to believe that
currency can induce lost bloodlines to reappear intact at a moment's
notice. I suppose that our longtime handlers feel equally plagued
standing knee-deep in so many upstart "instant agents" who
collect dogs to exhibit at sundry fees like garbage men do waste from
our sidewalks on a weekly basis. This miserable misconduct readily
explains what we end up with in our rings each weekend! Am I
suggesting that all modern dog breeders are hopelessly sidetracked?
By no means, only that peculiar faction that fit neatly into the
trappings of the disclosed package. What if you wish to succeed as a
novice breeder but dread falling into this pattern? How can you
identify the wrong track if you are on it?